UB experts can discuss the implications of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death

Experts can discuss topics from the political conflict over whether to replace him, to his legacy and looming court cases

“What started out as fierce intellectual independence and fearlessness degenerated, in his later years, into anger, stridency, and closed-mindedness. In his worst moments, Justice Scalia wrote not to persuade, but to mock and disparage.”

James Gardner, dean of the law school

University at Buffalo

BUFFALO, N.Y. – University at Buffalo faculty experts are
available to discuss issues of national importance that have
emerged after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Political conflict has exploded over whether President Obama
should attempt to replace Scalia in an election year, and whether
the Senate should consider the president’s choice. Other
emerging issues that UB experts can discuss include important
Supreme Court cases that may split 4-to-4 now that the court is
down to eight members, and what Scalia’s legacy was.

A partial list of available experts follows. Contact Rachel
Stern at 914-815-5656 for additional
experts.

James Campbell, University at Buffalo Distinguished Professor
of Political Science:

There is no way that a replacement for Justice Scalia will be
confirmed before the presidential election next November, says
Campbell.

“Republicans have a majority of seats in the Senate and a
majority is required to confirm a Supreme Court justice,” he
says. “They will not cooperate with a lame duck liberal
Democratic president in an election year naming a liberal justice
who will redirect the court from its current balance to one
inclined to rubber stamp liberal policies.”

The controversy is detrimental to relations between political
parties, and to the American political process, Campbell says.

“This is a kabuki dance of political posturing,” he
says. “President Obama sees an opportunity to win a
confirmation battle and shift the court to the left, or renew
charges that Republicans are obstructionists and opposed to
whatever demographic group a rejected nominee belongs to.

“It is about politics, not fulfilling constitutional
responsibilities.”

The inevitable Senate fight will make people even more cynical
about politics, Campbell says.

“It further poisons the well for future political
dealings,” he says. “It is throwing gasoline on the
political polarization fires.”

James Gardner, University at Buffalo law school interim dean,
and former law student of Justice Scalia’s:

While Justice Scalia made many important contributions to the
Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, one of his other legacies was
raising the level of incivility, says Gardner.

“What started out as fierce intellectual independence and
fearlessness degenerated, in his later years, into anger,
stridency, and closed-mindedness,” he says. “In
his worst moments, Justice Scalia wrote not to persuade, but to
mock and disparage.

“These writings have the unfortunate effect of
legitimizing the use of uncivil language in judicial opinions, and
it would be a shame if those who admire him for his virtues as a
jurist mistakenly emulated this characteristic of his later
work.”

Scalia evolved from an independent-minded intellect, to an angry
curmudgeon, Gardner says, and this raises questions about life-time
tenure for judges.

A limited term for appointed judges could help, he says.

“Loss of humility is an occupational hazard of
judging,” Gardner says. “People who are treated
constantly with the greatest deference on account of their office
may eventually come to feel that deference is due to them as a
person, for who they are and the opinions they hold.”

While Gardner was a law student at the University of Chicago,
Scalia was his contracts professor.

“He was an entertaining professor and had a great sense of
humor,” Gardner says. “He was quite a public speaker.
He was funny and witty.”

With the court poised to be left shorthanded for a year, it will
not be able to function very well, Gardner says.

In cases where there are 4-to-4 splits in voting, the lower
court’s decision would be affirmed and the Supreme Court
proceedings would be irrelevant.

“For those upcoming, high-profile cases, it is likely the
Supreme Court will defer hearing the case until next term when they
are at full strength,” Gardner says. “That means
rulings on important matters will be delayed for another year at
least.”

Lucinda Finley, University at Buffalo law school professor of
trial and appellate advocacy. Finley has argued two cases before
Justice Scalia:

There are some major, hotly contested cases that were likely to
split 5-4, Finley says. In the absence of Scalia, some of those
cases could be resolved in a 4-to-4 split, and then the decision of
the lower court would stand, she says.

One of those cases that was recently argued was Fisher v.
University of Texas. That case deals with affirmative action and
whether race could ever be a factor at all in university
admissions. Scalia’s comments during the case signaled that
he was highly likely to vote against considering race as a factor
in university admissions, Finley says.

“I think this further roils presidential electoral
politics,” Finley says. “It will remind people of the
Supreme Court and the power the court has to make decisions. The
Supreme Court will now become a major issue in the upcoming
presidential election. Before nobody was talking about the Supreme
Court in the election, now it clearly will become a major campaign
issue.”

Media Contact Information

Rachel Stern no longer works for University Communications. To
contact UB's media relations staff, call 716-645-6969 or visit our
list of current university
media contacts. Sorry for the inconvenience.